Leave or Fight? what would you do?
 

I saw this arcticle on CNN today and it got me to thinking, if you are one of those upset about the Kerry loss (or about the direction our country is taking in general) would you if you could find a way leave the US ? And if so why? It seems Canada is now recruiting :thumbsup:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

i am still debating this question.
and i havent decided yet,
because i thought the decision would be easier to take beforehand than it is now---maybe because i did not think bush could possibly get re-elected, so it floated about as an abstraction.
my only coherent response so far has been to start working on my own stuff again with greater intensity, figuring that everything i do can be seen as a fuck you to the way things are at the moment. but that is not really enough to keep me here.

so i am still processing.
but would be interested in how others are processing it, if they are.

My wife and I have been looking at New Zealand or Australia for some time now. We are waiting until after our Ph.D.'s are completed, however.

At least one other person I know stated that since he's a "white dude, he wants to take back his country" so he's staying.

Of course, I let the irony smolder for a second as he contemplated that he had just said that to a native :)

One of our primary concerns is climate and another is water. Canada is really too cold for me even though it's criminology seems to be top-notch. Australia, as a former penal colony, might be more interested in my background and standpoint.

But those islands, like what I understand is happening around Europe, seem to be moving rightward. I don't know if either of those statements are accurate, just what I've been able to gather from my limited understanding of the internal politics of other nations.

For example, I notice Australia's current support for our foreign policies and that NZ's economic policies are in agreement with the Washington Consensus. But we have a couple of years to figure it out.

We are definately moving, however. This has more to do with economics than political persuasion. As in, I'm not hateful or even mindful of Bush as a singular person so much as I am disgusted with the course and structure of our nation. Even if I were a democrat and had faith in their abilities or desires to alter the structural problems I think about, I don't believe that they could fix them.

Plus, given that the symbol of global capitalism has been torn down, I don't see any reason that the symbol of global culture here in Los Angeles wouldn't be next. Also, given the concentration of military establishments in Southern California, we don't appear to be in a very safe place in any one location. I mean, it's just ludicrous to me to think that something, sometime, won't happen within the coming decades.

I'm working on it. I've wanted to live outside the U.S. again for a couple of years now, but the right opportunity hasn't yet materialized. The election has given me incentive to look harder.

The thing is this - I lived outside the U.S. for a few years in the early 90's. What I found is a sense of freedom that I've never felt here. The freedom from feeling responsible for things which are just outside of my control. Like the political direction of the country. Living in another culture, I no longer care about what the U.S. does or does not do. Which is as it should be, seeing as how I can't stop the U.S. from doing it. At the same time, I don't feel responsible for the culture I am "visiting". It's not my culture, I can look at it, smile or frown at it, but ultimately I view it with interest as opposed to ownership.

Why I can't do that here in the States, I don't know. That is how it should be.

I have some friends and contacts in a few European countries, so that's where I'm focused right now.

But damn if New Zealand wouldn't be fucking sweet. :thumbsup: St. Barts is on my list too. ;)

Wave "Buh-Bye" with a big ole smile on my face. :lol:

If a person can't see past honest difference and has so little pride in their country that they would leave because they lost an election, then I would say to them to not let the door hit them in the rump on the way out.

there are plenty of reasons to live abroad... but leaving your home because of an election when you have a brand new crack at winning in just 4 years is some weak sauce.

i'm interested... what percentage of people who said they were going to leave if Bush is elected actually will? what percentage of people who have decided since the election will do it? how many will come back in a short period of time?

half of me wants to say "don't let the door hit you on the way out"... but the other half is thinking "i hope the door hits you on the way out." :)

jk folks.

I'm sure everyone's reasoning is more complex than *just* losing an election. My S.O. and I are looking at teaching English in Thailand, which probably wouldn't be a permanent move, but would provide the distance and insulation we feel we need from the U.S.

There's always the possibility that some foreigner will want to marry an American. Cred. Dan Savage for link, pretty funny. Some of those are just silly, some seem legit.

tempting!

damn! tempting

daswig, lebell, irate - funny, it feels so much more like I'm waving goodbye as you sink with the ship.

You'll spend a long time waving.

It's already under water.

The good news is, the administration is now stating that water is really the same thing as air. So you should be all good.

If I were drafted, I would fight.

Not so much because I am angry about Kerry losing the election, but instead because it would be a new opportunity for me, and something that I would take pride in.

Being in college now, and not sure what I'm doing afterwards, I've actually considered the armed forces, but not seriously..

However, if drafted, I would certainly fight. Sure, there is a risk of death, but providing I lived, I think it would be a very rewarding and educational experience. Plus, I take advantage of what this country offers me, so it only makes sense to serve it when requested.

Who said that, Powell? Well, in any event, they must be right, I'm still breathing.

I'd never run from an honestly elected president (until there's evidence that he wasn't, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.) I had already considered moving up to an area outside of Toronto for a while with a friend or two, just for the change in scenery. It wouldn't bother me to have dual citizenship, either. Canada was a nice place to visit, so when I move out of my mom's house for good, some of the places I look at might be there.

Now if you asked me to pick a home based on Starbucks versus Tim Horton's, I'd make a run for the border.

I have always thought of living abroad for a time in my life, just wasn't sure what would help push it...

While i'm not happy with the election results, i must say that I would not completely move out of the country bc a man i don't agree with is running the country...HOWEVER, as stated by some other people, i am not exactly pleased with the direction the country is taking as i have never been one for conservative christian values (if i believe the polls and fox news)...So, maybe this is the perfect time to teach and study in another country...I gotta say, though..canada isn't for me...too freaking cold...

lebell, irate:

i want to thank you for the display of senstivity, for your willingness to engage seriously with questions that deeply affect some of the folk on this board--you know, members of your community--the word you like to throw around when you talk about tfp as such.
you have to be pretty naieve (or willfully so) to imagine that what is at stake is the re-election of bush to a second term in itself. but whatever.

it is as a result of bigger problems, that go well beyond the bush-ites in themselves, that people including myself wonder if they are watching the place they were born commit a form of ritual suicide.

to this your response is little more than "huh?"

it is in response to a sense of what these problems mean that people, including myself, are trying to figure out if they can stay in the place where they were born under such conditions and you say "dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

way to go.

http://www.helpthemleave.com/

Really if you think America isn't for you, please, enjoy life elsewhere, I'd hate for anyone to suffer needlessly.

it is **your**america that is not for me, ustwo.
nothing to do with america per se.
you have no monopoly on the place.

I'll echo that. Ustwo would love for us to leave because then he wouldn't HAVE to preach the bullshit that the neo cons are using to trick people into agreeing with them - the neo cons would be the only ones left.

I'd not leave just because I disagree with the president. I stayed through Reagan didn't I? If, however, they tried to draft me for this war, which is an immoral, illegal, and unconscionable war, then hello Canada. Not that it would be an issue since I'm a bit to old for the draft, but if it came up I would refuse to aid the country in an unjust war.

running away
 

i dont know whats going on here , but if you didnt see what was coming when bush got elected then you dont know squat, but we all have our own ideas about this country, but if you are really thinking about leaving the us just b/c your man didnt get into office, thats bad, thats saying your not proud to be an american, when clinton won did anybody leave b/c he won, no, but as soon as some hollywood stars say if bush wins then i am leaving the u.s. come on people lets get real here. your going to let some movie star who lives better then most of us influence you on leaving the u.s. all in all lets not be losers and walking away from a problem. think twice about what country you live in, ok so things arent going the way you want, then you run for president ok oh dont forget clinton ran away too, so i guess its ok then

My vision for America just happened to win a rather major election. Had Kerry won, I'd have been disappointed but I would not be pouting about the nation, as I have some degree in faith in the basic systems in place. Its not my side of the debate talking about '2 Americas' and its not my side attempting to classify Americans as anything but American.

America is designed to have a peaceful revolution every four years. Its where we all get to give a vote of yea or nay to the current parties, and people that make them up. With the cast of a vote a 20 year political figure is just a foot note. The system works in this regard.

To me, Americans having problems with America, and thinking of leaving, are either having a problem with the system, the people, or their emotions. If you are having a problem with the system, you are a revolutionary, I have no time for people who wish to change the system of government. If you are having a problem with the people, you are a totalitarian, and believe your views are more important then the majority. Most I think are just having problems with their emotions. They are so worked up about issues most of them really have little knowlage about that its easier to talk about leaving then dealing with the rejection of what they thought of as their ideals.

The first two groups I want to leave. They have no place in America as I see it. The third, the depressed, will calm down and get over it and get back to being 'American'. They get another shot in 4 years.

Edit: I had to change 2 diapers, take a phone call, and call my wife asking about when my 5 week old just ate, fatherhood is fun :D

I'm not going anywhere. I intend to be a thorn in the ass of conservatives for years to come. ;)

let me explain something before i check out of this thread.

most of the people i know who were really effected by this election were and are well to the left of kerry--myself included. such support for kerry as there was was of an "anybody but bush" character.

most of the people i know who are in a position like i am in understood clinton for what he was--a dlc-style democrat, a centrist whose entire political agenda was shaped by "triangulation"--that is by co-opting moderate republican issues. the right's contentions that clinton was otherwise are obvious nonsense: they they have any credence is a good index of why the right is, so far as i am concenred, dangerous. for themselves as much as for others.

clinton was an unabashed cheerleader for globalizing capitalism, as are the neocons. the difference between them is that the neocons felt clinton insufficiently nationalist. they have no objection to globalizing capitalism either--they just want to see the american military appratus sitting atop it. whence the opposition to multi-lateral accords. whence gamble of the war in iraq--and i have to say that if it had gone as wolfowotz dreamed it would, maybe the gamble would have worked. but it didnt.

the contry has been veering right since before reagan. the veering to the right has accelerated, picking up by now an extra level of refusal to engage with complexity at any register as a function of assimilating fundamentalist protestant styles of rheotirc into its dicourse.

the america i see coming is one of intolerance and closed-mindedness, a space of relentless sanctimonousness, a space of total opinion management that veils itself as democracy.

the america i see coming will have no way to deal with the social problems the economic system that it has no choice but to treat as an unqualified good unfold within it.

the america i see coming will respond to those social problem with violence.

the america i see coming will be good for elements of the prison-industrial complex (a term i am not fond of, but which groups things) and few others.

the america i see coming will not be able to think critically about itself and the various phases of its decline because it is already choosing to live in fantasy.

the america i see coming is a place not terribly unlike this one insofar as the folk who hold significant economic power will be able to do exactly as they want, without political consequences, because the populace will be occupied with trivial matters.

but most of all the america i see coming will be about violence. mindless, self-inflilcted, self-perpetuating violence. wrapped in the flag, wrapped in patriotism, defining "undesirable" elements out of "america" until maybe there will only be a few "real americans" left, hunkered down in basement bunkers with their arsenals and canned food waiting for helter skelter.

this does not make me happy. i lived overseas for 5 years and found that i was never more american than when i wasnt here. not in ways that i necessarily could control either. but i never left intending not to come back. this would be different. and that is why it is really difficult.

all that said, i still find it difficult simply to leave. mostly because it would be capitulation to an ideology i find to be beneath contempt, giving over in a small way the place that despite all my ambivalences, is still my home. in which, at some probably irrational level, i had some kind of hope.

but as the hope dwindles away so does any real reason to stay here.



an appended side note: i wonder if this board is still around in a few years i might run across this post and wonder why i was such a drama queen about this. from here or somewhere else, i'll have figured all this out by then.

i also am figuring out that it is not good to post anything too directly emotional, or about anything that is too directly emotional, in places like this, no matter what the folk who participate in them like to think of them.
that too is sad.

Well needless to say I completely disagree with your assessment, but that in itself doesn't matter as such is untestable except with time.

What matters is the above line. You have to know you are in a tiny minority, and a powerless one at that in America. We don't want a far left government, which should be abundantly clear by now. In your lifetime you will not see an America which fits your vision. This is just a simple fact I don't think many would disagree with.

For you, if you want a government more towards your liking, leaving might not be a bad option. This is not tongue in cheek, but an honest feeling.

I joke about moving to Peru with friends and I suppose occasionally on the board, but when bush comes to shove (that's MY phrase...I coined that one) I will fight and die for old glory, my family, and my constitution. Those who leave because Bush won have that right. I don't see myself as able to judge them until I have made the decision to defend instead of run. If, for example, the constitutionally protected rights are taken or broken by the government, I would like to think that I would stand up and shout. Unfortunatally that time may have come and gone. The blurring of the lines made the first shot in this supposed war very difficult to hear with all of the background noise.

All rants aside, I'm sticking around for round 44 (44th president). It will be intersting to see if the Bush family virus is still able to latch onto the big seat in the oval office.

As far as coined phrases, I would like to be the first to call it the ovum office, if Hillary wins. Not that I'm anti women president - I would have votes for MRS. Dole, or MRS. Edwards for that matter - but the jokes will have to come.

I would like to note a few observations:

Yes it is sad that "feelings" must be kept in check on this board. That is an attempt to get us through this time of enflamed emotions, and has been relatively successful.

It was only after I had to intervene that respect returned to this discussion, had we decided to show such in the first place, this would have been avoided.

I find it ....unfortunate....that the people I have come to rely on as major contributors to this board, feel the need to disrespect each other, but I can understand the reasons. That said, I request that we all understand the needs of each side to be heard, and phrase our response accordingly.

Please guys.....it is hard enough to keep this forum in check , without losing the very stability built into it by our long standing members. I would appreciate your support in keeping this area civil....and keeping those who make the this board....active.

Look, I'm all about civility, but I'm also all about calling a pig a pig. The neo cons change their story every five minutes (there are WMD's. There aren't WMD's. We're gonna get bin Laden. Bin Laden? I'm not worried about bin Laden. We're gonna win the war on terror. There's no way to win the war on terror. Well when I said there's no way to win the war on terror (to Matt Lauer on Today, btw) what I really meant was that we're gonna win the war on terror - YOU misinterpreted me. We know where the WMD's are, near Baghdad and Tikrit. We don't know where the WMD's are and hey! We don't even know where the conventional explosives are. Major combat operations have ended, oh and by the way over a thousand soldiers are about to die in (i guess) "minor" combat operations. The economy is strong. Hey, we need to raise the cap on the debt or we'll default on our loans.) Getting the picture? This administration is, has been, and will continue to preach nothing but bullshit because unfortunately for them, almost half of the country isn't buying into their story. Only if those of us who can see right through them leave the country can they stop wasting time trying to snow us and start working toward what they want to work toward. So I stand by my original statement - they'd LOVE for us to leave. It'd free them up to do whatever they want without worrying about anyone checking on them.

Civility or not, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is not a swan.

i'll suck the teat of higher education a bit longer, and then i'll choose where to live. my deliberations will include my hometown of Minneapolis, a few of the major metro areas of the US, and a few places abroad.

it won't be over one election...but i really think it is important to choose where you want to make your contribution to the world.

This entire statement would mean so much more....had it been started with one simple line...........


IN MY OPINION

why? Of course it's in my opinion. Everything stated here is the opinion of its author.

Well except for the stuff I put in parentheses. All that actually happened and is therefore fact.

And since that's fact, then the idea that the administration is changing its story while denying that it is changing its story is also fact.

And since denying something that you know to be true is a lie, the administration is lying

And as we all know, another way of saying "he's lying through his teeth to you" is to say "he's bullshitting you."

So, actually, the only part of my statement that was opinion was the last two sentences.

And really, that last sentence could go either way.

You seem to miss the point of my reply.

It would be benefitial to all here...if we would set a new tone, one which makes it CLEAR, that statements are of a certain opinion. Rather than telling someone they are wrong, or this is the truth. All truths are subjective, and can therefore be considered opinion. Unfortunately, not all here accept this as relative to a debate, and this is where the flaming begins.

My hope is.....we all begin to listen to each other....rather than bitching. Not agreeing....just listening, and replying with some level of respect.

No, all truth is not subjective or opinion. The sun will rise tomorrow. That is a truth. It is not an opinion or subjective.

The administration has changed its story many times. That is a truth. It is not subjective. It is not an opinion. They first said they wanted to get bin Laden. Then they said they didn't care about getting bin Laden. That is a 180 degree flip (flop) from their previous position. A change of statement that large can not subjectively or any other way be considered to not be a change any more than black can subjectively become white. There are many other instances of them changing their opinion, far too many to go into again in this thread.

I see where you are coming from. You don't want us to say things that others might take offense at because that could degenerate the discussion into yet another flame war.

However, if, in order to avoid flame wars, we must avoid the truth at all costs lest we offend someone with overly delicate sensibilities, then there is no point to having a discussion at all.

What I am trying to say is, sometimes the truth pisses people off, but that is frankly too bad. Sometimes the truth is more important than shielding people from anger.

Roachboy, thank you for your heartfelt and sensible musings. OK, I guess I'm going to have to keep saying this until the Conservatives pay attention--Kerry was not left wing, far-left, or ultra liberal. In fact he is actually slightly to the right of purely moderate. (check www.politicalcompass.org yourself)

The vast majority of Democratic supporters do not want a left wing government they would settle for a moderate one. The problem is that a great many Conservatives feel that far, far right is the new center so the actual moderate position must be just over the horizon. Until this ridiculousness is sorted out there will never be an end to the current acrimony.

Like Smooth, I am also finishing my Doctorate and will therefore be tied to the United States for a couple more years. I feel as if it is both a blessing and a curse. As much as i feel uncomfortable about having less freedom to roam, I figure the proof of this administration's puddings taste will be abundantly clear by then, at which time I can make a thought out decision. If I come to feel that this country no longer has a place for me then I will begin a systematic search of possible new homes, probably starting with Australia etc. but we'll have to see.

I have to say, as an Independant this entire situation is indeed very sad for me. I would have never predicted 12 years ago when I began voting that there would be no place left for moderates and that i would be actually considering leaving this country. I have my (veteran) Grandfather's flag hanging over my bed, and it kills me that the things that his generation fought for are being undermined because of yahoos who can't stand the idea of: not owning Uzis, letting gay people marry, or believing in Dinosaurs.

roachboy,

I truthfully fail to see why you are surprised and offended.

Constantly I read things on this board that disparage my country and my president and the choices I've made in the last election and I'm supposed to let those slide and maintain a polite demeanor. I can't even begin to tell you how old it is when people use terms like "Bushies" and "Bushites" when refering to those that think differently than them. I have also seen more than a little melodramaticism regarding Bushes re-election, when history has shown that America has gone through much worse and survived just fine.

As to you leaving the country, what do you want from me? Sympathy? Empathy?

I'm sorry, but I have neither.

If you and others want to give up your citizenship and leave over something that in the greater scheme of things is a minor bump, that's your perogative, but don't expect me to feel bad for you.

And please be assured, I would have said the same thing to any republican that voiced the same thoughts after Clinton was elected to his second term.

well... if my door closing comments hurt any feelings... well, i'm sorry feelings were hurt from a personal standpoint. however, try spending a month or so in the shoes of a genuinely sincere conservative on this board... i know it's only an online bulletin board, but i've had to toughen my own skin a bit. considering what is too-often usual fare... it's hard for me to be very empathetic.

i think that it's just too hard for a lot of people to take seriously the feeling that someone is so despondent about the state of the nation that they feel the best course of action is to leave. in fact, my brainwashed sheeplike lockstep military mentality tells me that there are worse things than going down with a ship if it is indeed sinking. i see a challenge for our country. i see exciting, turbulent, dynamic and dangerous times. this is when the fight for justice in the next century is being fought. my nation isn't perfect, but i love the things she stands for. political correctness be damned, the United States is the greatest good the world has yet seen when she is true to her founding principles. we've been blessed with untold resources and given unprecedented responsibility. jumping ship will not change that.

for all that love our Constitution and believe that we can do good with all we've been given, it's beyond my comprehension why someone would choose to leave when so much is at stake. perhaps it is my military voice speaking... but i feel dutibound to do what i can to promote the good i see and the judicious application of the power we wield... whether my voice has a majority behind it or not. it's somewhat out-of-fashion to believe in something, i know i sound silly being so unapologetically idealistic about all this.

if you don't agree with my chosen career, religion, or politics... that's fine. to anyone who loves freedom and will do what it takes to promote human dignity in whatever way they sincerely believe is best... i entreat you to stay however rough the seas for however long we stay afloat.

Evidently, this topic was broached on PBS on Sunday (NOW).

One of the discussants was mentioning that the youth is going to start migrating en masse after they start to realize the implications of changes to the social security system.


Interestingly, many of us seem to be leaving to high tax nations that promise health care (even shoddy systems, according to the hype). So that tells me something about what we want and are willing to give up for it.

This phenomenon should accurately be called a "brain drain." I find it very strange that people would advocate people leaving more rapidly when those people are vital to the economy and their brainpower (trained by an excellent higher education system) will be forever lost to the nation that subsidized it.

Seems a more rational response would be to find incentives to make them stay.

Before this topic gets locked (thanks for your patients tecoyah) I would like a chance to add my food for thought to see if we can get a good discussion going here. First, it seems somewhat ironic to me that every time things get rough here in the States, part of our population starts migrating to Canada (think back to Vietnam/Korean War era, Civil War era, heck even the Revolutionary War era). I also find it somewhat ironic that the response that the (quote) “winning side” during these eras has towards those leaving seems to be “Love it or leave it”. True, I don’t think that one should go around “America hating” (that is to say hating all thing American simply because they are American), but to me it seems possible to love one’s country but hate the things that it does, and this shouldn’t make one unpatriotic or feel like one should be “forced” to leave one’s country. I would liken this analogy to that of a parent of a misbehaving child. The parent loves the child, but does not approve of actions that the child may take (or better yet for all the good christians in the crowd, God, who loves the sinner but hates the sin). When I hear political pundits (on both sides of the isle) make claims that their opinion is the only correct one and that everyone who disagrees with them (usually the minority) is not only wrong but unpatriotic and un-American, it strikes me that (not only are they unpatriotic and un-American to say such things) this is like the child claiming the parent doesn’t love them anymore because the parent doesn’t approve of the child’s behavior (and I just realized that some of you might read this and think that I am in some way attempting to claim that (insert your party name here) is somehow misbehaving like a child, and that we the “parents” really know what is best. I am not promoting this at all, just attempting to draw an analogy to demonstrate my point).

Second, according to Machiavelli there are two sort of people in the world, those who want to rule and those who don’t want to be ruled. The vast majority of Americans fall into this second category. Most of us just want to go about our daily lives free from governmental interference, and to a very large extent that is exactly what we get. I would venture to say that if one were to really step back a minute to look at this past presidential election the single fundamental underlying motivating factor for most voters was not moral/religious values, the war in Iraq/terrorism, the economy, or any other of the various “issues” claimed by the political pundits to be deciding factors. Sure these issues may have all played a part in the decision process of the voters, but the single fundamental underlying motivating factor of almost every voter in this election (as in all elections) is people chose to vote for the candidate that they believed would do the best job of protecting their rights and freedoms (from either governmental interference, corporate interference, or other).

Third, regardless of who came out with the most (popular or otherwise) votes in this election, neither side has a “clear mandate” from the American public (Bush for business as usual or Kerry for fighting against the evil neo-cons). Why do I say this? There are (approximately) 294,765,025 people in the US (see U.S. Census Bureau) and even as hotly contested as this election was only 120 million or so of them showed up to vote. Even taking into account that about 33.5 million people in America are not citizens (leaving about 261.2 million) less then half of all American’s voted in this year’s election. Even if we are to use the “eligible voter standard” (which can be somewhat arbitrary depending on who is using it) only 60% of those eligible to vote did, giving Bush less then 1/3 of the vote of the people (just for comparison Clinton won with less then 1/4). The vast majority of Americans “voted” by not showing up at the polls. Why? Because they either don’t see either side as posing a serious threat to their freedoms or they don’t see one side offering a better option then the other and simply have resigned themselves.

Lastly, our founding fathers understood Machiavelli’s take on human nature and gave us a government designed to limit the abilities of those few who wish to rule over the rest of us. For Democracy to work there must be open debate and compromise. It is not sufficient for one side to gain a majority and then force its rule over the minority claiming “mandates” and “legitimacy” and blaming all those who dare to disagree with their side unpatriotic and un-American. This is not a democracy, it is an elected dictatorship.

I personally am a revolutionary and there is another one scheduled in 2 years. Until that time I will do what little I can to shape the face of politics in my community. For those of you who are disgusted with the direction that this country is headed I say stay, join the revolution and fight for your rights and your vision of America. We can’t expect change to happen overnight, but if each one of us does his own part to effect change within his sphere of influence, together we can change the world.

When asked at the close of the constitutional convention “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”, Benjamin Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it”. :thumbsup:

If the TFP admins support the banning of users because they have the audacity to challenge an ultra-right wing user (or left wing user for that matter. . . .or hell, any user), then it is not the place that I, or frankly pretty much any of us thought it to be.

Let me be sure of where I stand here. You seem to be threatening to ban me because I said the neo-conservatives are preaching bullshit. Are we no longer permitted to point out when someone is deceiving us?

The comparison to the sun rising on the moon was frankly disingenuous. I do hope you are not suggesting that we make all of our posts look like a legal document, with very specific examples (the sun will rise tomorrow on earth in the central time zone assuming the sun wasn't destroyed by a mutant space fly, and the like) in order to deal with simple definitions.

The idea that truth is subjective is 1) incorrect, 2) irrelevant (I was talking about fact, not truth, and 3) used as a cop-out by those who do not wish to make or support those who make strongly worded statements.

Throughout our little side argument you have concentrated on snipping away at minutae while not even bothering to deny my main point - Bush changed his story. Of course, you do not deny it because it is fact and it is truth, and no reasonable person would deny that white is white. It is also the reason for my original post.

I understand that there are those who do not wish to see the Bush administration for what it is. I understand that there are those who will become angry when someone points out their failings and shortcomings.

What I do not understand is why you seem to be saying that when people get angry, it is the fault of those pointing out the shortcomings, and not the fault of those who are allowing themselves to get angry because of the facts.

Laugh, I'll believe it when I see it.

Seriously this is laughable. Most 'young people' I knew when I was working menial jobs bitched constantly about the amount that social security took out of their pay checks (and they know nothing about employer matching).

The only reason a young person should think of leaving over social security changes is if the government decides they need to tax them all to the brink to pay for the aging population. That is a lot more scary to a young person then lack of free crappy health care, or small checks when they are retirement age.

Your last paragraph is exactly the position we are taking as well as the opinion of the discussant.

Where exactly do you think the money comes from to fund the transition costs? Scratch that, if it's too far off topic. Where was I even talking about menial labor when I mentioned the brain drain? The young posters in this thread are Ph. D. students. If you want to laugh while we go somewhere else, fine, but the nations reaping the rewards aren't laughing--they're excited from the looks of their immigration websites.

Laugh and scoff all you want. We are a lot different than the youth of when you went to school. It is ludicrous to me that people continuously compare the generations without acknowledging the different historical realities and opportunities each one faced.


As I initially said, the primary reason we're (my wife and I) moving is economic. Shortly, I want a good paying job.

Now I added that I'm willing to give up a substantial portion of that income for social services I see as desirable. I didn't say I was leaving the country for free health care or social security. I don't see any reason to work in a country that pays me shitty wages, doesn't give me the social services I want for my taxdollars, and is preparing the public to shit on me when I finally retire.

I have a doctorate as well. I picked mine based on economic viability, and that I happen to like working with people.

I’m 34 years old. I doubt that you are any different then when I was there in the least. People have a tendency to think they are somehow better, more special then the others who came before them. They are quite wrong, we are very much the same people. Some attitudes may change but motivations rarely do.

I’m always for people bettering their economic circumstance.

I pay less for my health insurance then a Canadian making 1/3rd as much as I do (see the health care thread I started) pays in taxes for his, and its better. I don’t plan on the public handling my retirement, nor do I plan to work ‘for the country’ so the country won’t be paying me shitty wages. I don’t know what your PhD is in, but if it is of low desirability and there is a higher desirability else where, then it makes sense to move. As they say in business, location, location, location. If enough do move then you will see an increase in demand at home again.

Social security obviously needs to be fixed. Bush’s baby steps won’t be enough but at least they may get the ball rolling. All I hear from my colleagues in socialist countries like Germany and France, is how tight the budgets are and how they can’t see the system being there for them in 20 years. The US economy is still the strongest in the world, and for all of our problems paying for an ageing population they are PEANUTS compared to what Europe faces per person. Canada is already unable to properly fund its health care system (again see my old thread) and its only getting worse.

In the end all of the Western economies, will need to make some major cuts in social services. Odds are taxes will go way up at first before the producing part of the population gives up and then funding for all the wonderful programs will be drastically cut. Try not to rely on these programs or you will find yourself in trouble come retirement.

So if you want to move because you get shitty wages for your skills, then you SHOULD move, I know I would. If you think its going to be better beyond that, you will have unpleasant surprises in your future.

I saw your old thread, and I posted a series of questions you couldn't answer.

My degree, which I'm very surprised you don't know what it's in since I've posted it in a few places, is very desirable in the US. It's one of the blooming areas of the economy. But my wage is only a portion of a larger economic portrait.

At some point the piper will come calling, and then my wages (regardless of how high they are) will become very shitty indeed relative to my social conditions.


However, this really isn't about me justifying to you of all people why I will leave the country. My point is that it doesn't make sense to allow conditions that push the educated away from a region and then scoff at them as they take away necessary resources and add them to someone else's economy.

I'm not discussing personal motivations. Your comment on that regard is ahistorical and every qualifier you added to it had absolutely nothing to do with context. I don't know how you conclude that I was saying the graduates of today are better than those of a few decades ago.

I said the exact opposite--that opportunities and conditions are decreasing.

I'm also not laughing or scoffing at anyone about anything.

Edit: I wanted to clear something up so Ustwo or anyone else doesn't wonder at apparent inconsistencies in my position. That is, there are a confluence of factors urging us to leave. Where I move to will be dictated by the worth of my degree. I specifically mentioned that when I used Australia as an example of a possible place.

It's not that I'm getting a degree in a low paying sector, but that my wage won't satisfy me in relation to the social conditions I live in (which are not limited to political factors, as much as people want to reduce these discussions to unidimensional analyses). And I specifically mentioned that the place I am native to, and would receive a very nice wage, and actually does share most of my social values (as if mine were developed in a vacuum and weren't a function of my environemnt, lol), is unfortunately the next most likely target for a catastrophe.

Didn't answer, I can only answer so many socialists, so please don't take a lack of response to indicate anything but a lack of response. Were I to give equal time to all posts I would not have time to do much else but post on this board . I'll be sure to give them a look.

I started to write a long winded response to each point you made, but I think you are aware of your own inconsistences. I don't think you know WHY you are leaving, its low pay, high pay, social services, whatever. I'll just remind you of the obvious, the grass is not always greener.

Ohhhh, boy. Could not agree more, could not agree more. Has anyone been to an American University in the past 15 years? The intolerance, closed-mindedness, relentless sanctimonousness, and opinion management is unbelievable in academia. If this brainwashing works, I have concerns for America. Right now, I'm staying.

comrades:

i wanted to apologize for the outburst yesterday in this thread.
not necessarily for the content,
but for allowing myself to post at a point where,
for reasons that i find a bit mysterious this morning,
the question at hand caught me in a space of particular emotional rawness.

particularly to those at whom i directed a particular sense of being-offended.

it is strange how smoothly one can slip from a sense of bearings linked to what is happening in the world around you in real time to one of massive telescoping.
stranger still to find yourself writing from the latter space and reading back through it the next day
for example.

because i think it forced a kind of particular and not necessarily constructive shift in the register in which folk were talking on the thread as a whole.

but i appreciated reading through this morning and finding folk willing to continue wrestling in the thread despite that.

one other point:

ustwo--
i was never under any illusion that the governing order in the states would line up with my particular politics. i have long been accustomed to working in a space of opposition. i do it in my professional life, in my work.

i think that what ultimately had/has me alarmed about this period is that i see a discourse shift to the right that would foreclose any meaningful space for continuing that work here.

from there, it is but a short leap to finding my sense of hope being undercut.

that is how it has gone.
that is my situation.
it does not operate on the basis of illusions about either the existence in the states of an actual left politics or about the electoral system and the pseudo-options it offers.

lebel, irate: i hope the above explains my reaction to your posts as well.

If Kerry is right of moderate, what is all this whining about? Would we be listening to all this garbage about leaving the country if he had won? He wasn't going to legalize gay marriage--he was against it; he wasn't going to repeal the patriot act or withdraw from Iraq.

You say the democrats want moderation, but the conservatives don't. I could just as easily say the liberals want a far left agenda, but republicans want to govern from the middle. There are several high-profile moderate pro-choice republicans. How middle of the road are the democratic leaders. Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton?

If your grandfather had been asked at the time of his service what was he fighting for, where on the list would he have mentioned gay marriage. I know, he would have said freedom and you think that included gay marriage. Did he or those serving with him?

You blame conservatives for the bans on gay marriage. Wake up. If Kerry had won, gay marriage would still have lost in every state. Every state. The so-called moderates and independants voted against it. That doesn't make a conservative a yahoo. The fact that a person supports the actual words of the constitution and the 2nd amendment does not make them a yahoo. It would seem to me that more people believe in dinosaurs now than when your grandfather or great-grandfather were in school.

You want out? Get out. I'm staying and I don't need your sympathy for my plight. The people who are fighting for this country right now, who are dying for this country right now, who are risking everything in their service to this country right now overwhelmingly support the current adminstration. Those that do deserve better than to be labeled as yahoos by you. Call them whatever you want, I'll be glad to have them back here when their job is done.

To be more clear about Kerry's moderation he is SLIGHTLY to the right of moderate, if the lib.-conserv. scale went from 1-100, he would probably be a 54 or something. It goes without saying that he has had to moderate his position to compete with the Republicans on certain issues. The "whining" isn't because Kerry ran on a moderate platform, it's because Bush is decidedly right of conservative. So if Kerry had won it is likely that there would be less whining simply because his administration would have chosen a more moderate path; but we will never know. It's purely theoretical. With the current administration it is a proven fact that they do not want a moderate government--it is evident in their actions.

Gay marriage is an easy target. Many gay people are so used to being prejudiced against that avoiding trouble is a conditioned behavior. They will not fight back or look for trouble, life is hard enough for them in the first place. It so so easy to dismiss homosexuality as abberant that many people don't seem to consider rights for gays because they are not gay themselves. For all the conservative's bluster about upholding the constitution they conveniently forget that all Americans are entitled to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"--even gay Americans. Although you correctly point out that more than just the Conservatives voted against gay marriage, the Republicans were nearly entirely united in their opposition to it, while the other parties were less unified. That's why I'm pointing the finger at what I see as the most egregious offenders. As for my grandfather, he was a open and progressive person and always looked for the good in people. I'm fairly certain that he would have seen gay people less as gay Americans, and more as just Americans.

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, the last time I read it, the "actual words" were the "right to keep and bear arms." Unless there's a sub-amendement that I don't know about that says something about assault weapons. No one's coming to take all your guns away.
Rest assured, I have respect for most of our soldiers (except the lowlifes who are corrupted by power). The best thing that we can do to support them is not involve them in interests that are not directly necessary for the protection of our country.
Finally, I am not offering you sympathy. As far as I can tell, you are going into this with your eyes wide open.

you could say that, but you would be wrong.

I myself will wait and see as the situation develops. I do wish to eventually leave and live in another country for awhile, but that is more because the particle accelerator at CERN and alot of other things their...make me drool. Of course that would be after I finish grad school...which at the moment seems like it will take forever.
Most likely I will be a thorn in the side of the neo-cons for quite a few years to come.

I find it interesting that many of this board's Bush supporters are now touting such nonesense as "Wave goodbye" or "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" etc...

One half of the electorate now feel disenfranchised (to a greater or lesser degree). Some of them are so disillusioned that they are now questioning whether America, the current America, America under Bush, the neo-con right-wing religiously pandering America is where they want to be.

That's entirely their right.

But ridiculing them because of it is not only inappropriate (especially on a board specifically for such discussions) but downright hypocritical. Many of the same Bush supporters on this board claimed such nonsense that there would be a civil war if Kerry won, that the nation would be torn asunder like nothing since the 1860's if Kerry won, boasted they threatened Kerry supporters with firearms, proudly stated that the left would ignore the Evangelical and right-wing voters at their peril and so on ad nauseum.

However, now we have another tune. Decidedly NOT magnanimous in victory, they now respond to simple opinions and statements of disappointment with insult. It is not the Kerry supporters who threatened civil war or spouted pompous philippics on how the end of American civilization was nigh. They have simply been disappointed and confused and, in some circumstances, driven to question their current lives in an America which now seems to hold ideals highly they cannot support.

The difference is notable. And the nastiness is tangible.

Mr Mephisto

How can you fix the problem if you go to the land of high unemployment, taxes, bad healthcare.

If anyone would use that as a reason in isolation, they deserve to be there. The US will always keep Canada and Mexico suppressed.

The point is that democrat does not equal liberal and republican does not equal conservative. Mixing them (conservative vs. democrat or liberal vs. republican) doesn't make much sense.

It is not nonsense for one American to say Bye-Bye to another that either leaves the country or whines incessantly about leaving the country all because JFKerry is not president. There are pretty important elections every two years in this country. Win the next one, don't, leave the country, stay, all of these are fine.

I don't know who claimed a Kerry win would bring Civil War--I suppose there are crackpots who said just things, but aren't they crackpots who are worthy of a pointed response to such silliness if not outright ridicule?

The bye-bye response is not "love it or leave it." At least I am not saying you can't criticize or you have to be on the side of the administration. I am saying that simply packing up and leaving is not a valid criticism, it is not debate--it's whining--especially since almost no one is actually going that wasn't going anyway. You want to criticize actual things the administration is doing, that's fine. You want to whine and talk about leaving, I guess that's fine too, but to whine and then say its somehow nasty to respond with "go ahead and leave" is too much.

We all have our way of looking at things, but how do we get so self-assured and smart that we feel it's our perogative to complain, threaten, not do anything, and then call anyone who disagrees with us nasty and mean.

As to the nasty, who here can't taste and feel the nasty written over and over towards the current administation on these boards?

Yes thats nice, we enjoy outsider opinions of our political process :icare:

Yes I joke with you, I don’t even know what socialist nation you are from :D

First off if they are feeling 'disenfranchised' they don't understand the meaning of the word. I think they are being sore losers. The people spoke and the people told them no, and they are pouty about it. Bush has more of a majority % wise then any US democrat president since LBJ. Had the vote count been exactly opposite, they would be talking about the great mandate of the people and how reason triumphed and all that crap. They are acting irrational and quite frankly inviting ridicule. Personally I have little sympathy for anyone so distraught they speak of leaving the country, and I won’t miss anyone who does.

let us take a moment to consider conservative-style ridicule.

i think it best embodied by the work of p.j. o'rourke, exemplar of what i like to call the "travelling cretin school".
in these works, the travelling cretin goes places, encounters situations, some of which are explained to him in detail.
but the travelling cretin has no truck with complexity, no truck with it at all.
the travelling cretin never assimilates information.
the travelling cretin never really interacts with his surroundings.
the travelling cretin works to make the world monotonous by imposing his fratboy sensibility on everything.
there is a way in which the travelling cretin never travels at all.

interactions usually follow this pattern:
t.c. encounters a situation he does not understand.
this is strange.
this is big.
i dont get it.
laugh at it.

so you have:
poverty in india...
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

political questions in the states...
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

let's think about this model in particular now.
in this thread, there are many posts that try to articulate, with varying degrees of success, what is at stake for folk who are considering leaving the country.
there is information presented----over and over----that falsifies every element in the "understanding" you see above for why people might consider leaving

here is an outline of the interaction with this information that you see embedded in the above:
this is strange.
this is big.
i dont get it.
better to distort what is going on.
then laugh at it.
ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Well, what is at stake for staying or leaving?

I see whining and complaining. I see people calling other people yahoos and acting like no one believes in Dinosaurs. I see someone who was going to leave anyway for economic reasons after finishing with a first class American education. I see someone wanting to go because they want the "freedom from feeling responsible for things which are just outside of my control (In a foreign land--not responsible for America or new place b/c not from there). I see someone thinking about a dual citizenship for a change of scenery. I see a complaint tha the country is simply already underwater. I see complaints about an America that is coming, but which isn't here and no basis is provided for the direness of the prediction.

How is one to respond to this stuff.

you see what you want to see and nothing else.
i would think the motives are pretty clear beneath the surfaces of these posts.
whether you are inclined to look at them or not is a function of your predelections.
nothing to be done, like beckett said.

First of all, I don't count one thread as "incessant".

You misunderstand what I believe the point of the thread was, and my response.

If people are feeling disappointed and want to ask each other (I doubt the question was aimed at Bush supporters) whether they should leave or stay, then they are entitled to do so.

However, for the "winners" to step in and say things like "Bye bye" or "don't let the door bang your ass on the way out" is just nasty. It's not conducive to the debate. It contributes nothing. It's insulting. It's nasty.

By all means argue. But why ridicule?


I try not to be nasty. I can't speak for anyone else.

Mr Mephisto

Erm... OK.

Well, seeing as I'm not from North Korea or China, I think that about rules out any of the remaining socialist countries in the world now, doesn't it?

I think your opinion is well known. When you have felt like ridiculing others on this board, my opinion has never stopped you.


Mr Mephisto

I think too much weight has been placed on some people "ridculing" others in this thread. You are only ridiculed if you feel offended. I am hardly offended by someone who, speaking to how I feel about the sad state of this country, offers a response of "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!"

It's a silly, useless response. Not that I didn't expect it. If that is the limit of their ability to empathize, I can't really give them my respect. So their childish viewpoint means essentially nothing to me. It's not ridicule, or mean or nasty of them. It's just a waste of bandwidth, which only becomes a problem if it consistently increases and goes unchecked.

Same Shoe, Different Foot.

I've heard the name-calling before from both side of the political debate. When the Democrats won the House and Senate with Bill Clinton's first win, they proclaimed publicly that the conservatives had "better get out of the way, or be steamrolled over." Barbara Streisand warned that she would "leave the country" if the American people had the temerity to elect Bush Sr. There were concerns over the military with Carter. We survived. The political winds will shift, attitudes will change, and we will choose new leadership.

Leaving the country solely for the political outcome is foolish. For exploration or economy, that I see as reasonable.

Baron Opal

Hmm, my first post here, and its political. I'm taking after my parents it seems.

Indeed.

Welcome aboard :D

::sighs::

i really can't believe what i'm seeing here. a little good natured ribbing coming back the other way and it dominates a thread. try walking a mile in my shoes... you'd get blisters after 10 paces my friends. my buddy pan called me a hypocrite and a tool (by association) in another thread not too long ago... i know who i am, no harm done. pan, roachboy, smooth... they get spirited sometimes because they're sincere. like water off a duck's back now-a-days.

it's not silly or useless. it's not juvenile... it's just a lighthearted jab. you have appreciate that from most people's perspective, leaving after an election when you are guaranteed another shot at succes in 2 or 4 years is akin to that one kid in gradeschool who took his kickball home when he wasn't picked first for teams. whether that be a refusal to engage the world as roachboy proposes or a semi-successful attempt to bite your tongue at absurdity as i view it... it's not meant to be deep, or personal, empathetic or mean-spirited. it's just a quick pop to the shoulder to get a reaction.

And you got my reaction. Your and others good natured ribbing, or whatever you'd like to call it, doesn't come across as good natured. Whether it is ribbing makes no matter to me. It was useless. That much is certain.

Well, that's a fair enough comment. I guess it just seems to me that the barbs are just a little too sharp.

Anyway, no real harm done. It's not as if any of you are insulting me! :)

Mr Mephisto

As far as insults go, I can personally take being told I'm full of it, or that I'm delusioned, or whatever else the neo-cons want to say about me.

For their part, i think the staunch conservatives like Ustwo can take whatever I throw at them too.

We ARE adults here. We all survived Jr. high school. I'm pretty sure we got tortured worse then than we ever will here.

I see and read what is here. I'm trying to see us focus on some issues rather than irrational doomsaying. What do you think my motives are?

As to whether any ridicule is o.k. towards those who are now threating to leave, Beckett did say that nothing is funnier than unhappiness.

It's on more than one thread and it started before the election.

People are entitled to ask each other whether they should leave or stay, but shouldn't be surprised that a lot of people who agree with them politically and who don't will take issue with the notion of leaving just because of this election.

I am decidedly not a winner in this election--I am a big loser as a result of the outcome--both in my beliefs and the practical implications of what is going to happen because of my candidates losing. I'm still saying "bye-bye." If I'm going to have any allies in fighting against the things that are going to happen that I disagree with, I won't be looking for the whiners and the "I'm taking my ball and moving to Canada" crowd.

Maybe "don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out" isn't the most productive thing to say, but I don't see the issue debate in "I'm sad and I'm leaving."

I don't think you have been nasty at all Mr. M, but others have on both sides. Let's just call if fair.

believe me, i have no a priori problem with ridicule. either issuing or recieving.
but i figure that it is not equally appropriate in all contexts.
that's all.

as for what you are reading--well, from your viewpoint maybe this is irrational.

i suspect that i would find most of your politics irrational as well. in fact, given that i find nationalism to be a form of collective mental disorder, you can be sure of it.

what i think folk were trying to explain are some of the reasons why the question of leaving or not in the face of the present state of affairs is being considered.
given that, it really makes no difference whether you or anyone else finds those reasons inaccessible or how you choose to spin that inaccessibility.
it really doesnt.

i think it was not unreasonable to expect that others would recognize and respect that, but apparently in some cases that was assuming too much.
what i did expect is that folk who disagree would at least choose not to be clods about it.
as it turns out some were not, some, including youself, were--and personally, i misinterpreted a couple (irate in particular)--it is how things sometimes go in the alienated space (platonic sense) of a message board.

much past that, i do not see the point of trying to persuade you to think about posts that you are not apparently willing to take seriously.

I've been thinking about it and trying to react honestly to this entire thread. I will probably be impacted more negatively than the overwhelming number of people by this election. I am willing to discuss any legitimate reason for leaving the country because of it, but I don't see a reason for all of the doomsaying, hopelessness, dispair, and disrepect. I don't mind being called a clod, but doesn't that meet our current standards for being nasty?

I don't read a whole lot of discussion here involving the actual reasons for leaving now and because of the election (your earlier post did have some listed, but no one is writing about that), I see a lot of complaining and complaining about the complaining.

I'd be happy to discuss anyones reasons for talking about leaving. Yours include the America you see coming re: prison rates, social violence, and intolerance and others. I agree with some of those thoughts, disagree with others, but think that talk of leaving the country is a little high-pitched and unproductive. If that makes me a clod or nationalistic, sorry.

If you want people to really seriously see these things as reasons to pack up, shouldn't the arguments be fleshed out a little bit?

when i get back in a few days, i'll post a response....

I´m a 40 year old American living in Spain for the last 14 years. I spent election night this year on a rare business trip to Chicago. Where the hell were all these Bush supporters that supposedly live there? Everyone, everywhere I was at hate the man and everything he´s doing to their country. I live in Spain because I love it. I didn´t move here to escape America. Though I might do so now if I was still there.
I still love America and the and the ideals it was founded on. I don´t believe the Bush administration represent these ideals anymore than I believe the moon is green cheese. If you are one of these articulate, supposedly intelligent suckers falling for the propaganda shoveled down your throats, I hope you or your children are not of age for the draft. Luck and sympathy. Glad I already have an apartment over here in hippie peacenik old Europe.

Heh, I wonder why Canada even want to attract Americans. I would expect them to be watching their borders more carefully now...

It could be that those who voted for Bush went on with their lives and didn't fly to Chicago to bitch about the president. Actually, it is because Chicago was a very, very blue area and the president didn't get many votes there. But you knew that.

You also know that the terrorists wanted JFKerry to win or, more to the point, Bush to lose. While they were able to get their way in Spain--just had to kill a bunch on innocents to get their way there--their influence didn't work the same way here. I'll glad you like Spain--it's number one on my list of where I want to visit next, but I don't need your sympathy for living here.

I believe you´re mistaken. Bush is the biggest gift ever to radical terrorist factions. He sends them thousands of new recruits every week. The people here threw out Aznar based on a well founded belief that his extremely unpopular alliance with GW´s neocon admin. was a direct cause of the Madrid attacks. Don´t bother visiting. I really don´t think you´d like it here.

This is commonly spouted by the anti-war crowd, like its a stone cold fact. How exactly is Bush sending thousands of fresh recruits to terrorist orginazations? Wheres your proof? Simply assuming thousands of terrorists are being "created" is fantasizing at best.

Just outside Chicago where I live.

Even if Bush's presidency just "created" one, it would be one more than Ashcroft convicted.

good point. Where´s my proof? Simply assuming thousands of terrorists are being created is the crux of the problem. Where the hell are all these terrorists? Not in Guatanamo. Not in Iraq. At least they weren´t there before. U.S. kill ´em all policy does not create loving allies out of armless orphans. No-one whos entire life and livelyhood has been destroyed by "liberators" is gonna throw flowers and kisses. Why do they hate us? gee, think about it. Bush policy is almost 100% assumption. Has been since day 1. or 11. When you assume you make an ass of u and me. Sorry, always wanted to use that phrase.

So anyone move yet or is just more hot air like 2000?

Or mabye they look forward to the end of the war and the possibility of living with more freedom. Mabye they understand their leader (ie Saddam) did everything in his power for years to give america reasonable justification for war, and brought the suffering upon them. Mabye. Either way, we are still just assuming.

reasonable justification? assumptions within assumptions within.... There is no justification whatsoever for the slaughter being commited under false homeland security whitewash. America is not exporting democracy. They are attempting to control mideast oil production.

I get it now, helping to fight terrorists and free the oppressed caused the terrorists to kill a bunch of your innocent citizens and since the terrorists did that, it was the right thing to just give in. You must be right, just let the terrorists be, they only show up once in a while for a nice little mass murder. To fight them is to create them. To walk away from fighting them is just good old quality open-minded happy happy european sensibility.

Either way you argue it, you are admitting that the terrorists are deciding your elections for you. I still want to visit, why would anyone not like to visit Spain?

"Just give in" ?

Do you know how many Spaniards have died from Al Queda attacks since the election?

No, I don't. Zero?

That's my understanding, too.

Seems like the Spanish technique was effective.

It will probably continue to work so long as Spain gives in to their demands, whatever those demands may be.

Of course, one of the demands for the US is to stop supporting Israel, which is to essentially say, "Sorry guys, you're on your own as far as the Arabs wanting to slaughter you all."

Of course, it would also free the Israelis to do what they want as far as the occupied territories go.

Which of course might lead some nations (like Iran) to conclude that the US wouldn't respond to an attack on Israel.

Of course, Israel might feel it necessary to respond with nukes, possibly pre-emptively if Iran had them.

So should we give in as well?

Effective at what? Emboldening them to try to impact other elections. Confirm for them that terror works and a great democracy will bend to their will. Give them a great success story they can use to recruit new members. Help them kill people in other countries. Increase their fund raising.

How many have died as a result of al queda attacks in Canada, Poland, Australia, Britain, Germany, U.S., S. Africa, Portugal, or any country other than Iraq since the Spanish attack? The claim of effectiveness demonstrates that we all don't have a real good understanding for how these people work.

I guess we can all disagree on whether the Spainish people made the correct choice in the election, but no one seems to dispute the fact that Spain gave in as a result of the terror attack. All they wanted this time was a few hundred of your innocents and an election. I'd be concerned for what they are going to ask for next.

Hmmm well this does seem like a very bold statement then doesn’t it? Well I will be the first to admit that I really don’t know much about the internal politics of Spain prior to the bombing there, but I’m guessing neither do most of the people here either. So that being said let me play devil’s advocate here for just a moment. Could it be that the Spanish people didn’t “capitulate” to terrorist demands as some would have us believe? Seems to me that a lot of the population wasn’t very happy with their political leadership prior to the election anyway. It could just be that the bombing their simply galvanized the population in their resolve to get out the vote on election day to replace their government with one that they believed would more accurately reflect the opinion of their population instead of “capitulating” to the demands of the US. It is important to bare in mind that the war in Iraq is very unpopular globally and has already cost more then a few politicians their jobs.

And here is a question for thought, what would have happened had the US been hit at home with a similar attack just prior to the election? (Course this is all hypothetical at this point, thank God that we weren’t). Would the democrats have been able to get out the vote more or less do you suppose? Would support for an administration claiming to be keeping us safe from attacks (while the other guys wouldn’t be able to ie. Dick Cheney’s remarks) have increased or, more likely, decreased after such an event? Just something to ponder.

Youv'e thought this through. That's a rare quality.

We were the ones who armed the Isrealites. Well, it was the US and the UK. We paid for them to develope one of the lergest armys on the planet, and we gave them nuclear technology. We give somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 billion to Isreal every year. If we heald onto that, it could pretty much balance the budget in a few years, BTW. So what doies Isreal do in response to this wonderful support? They spy on us.

I say leave them to their own devices and tell them that if they decide to nuke, we'll blow them to kindgom come. That's americas standard stand on nuclear attacks. "You can have them, just don't use them. Actually, you're going to have to do what we say from now on", says Uncle(ar) Sam.

I'm not claiming to know all that much about Spanish politics, I'm just saying no one here seems to be disputing the impact of the terrorist attack preceding the election both in intent by the terrorists and capitulation by the electorate. It is my understanding that the candidate who backed US efforts re: terrorism and Iraq (of course, not completely) was unquestionably ahead in the polls prior to the attack and lost the election because of the attack. If I am wrong, I'm sure there is someone out there who knows more about it than me.

If it is assumed that the terrorists had that type of an impact on a great democracy, I wouldn't call it a success just that there haven't been any attacks in the past few months in Spain. Bullies don't just want your lunch money once.

If it happened here in 04, my guess is that W would have won by a greater margin. The outcome may be different in a different circumstances. I'm sure Dick Cheney would have said whatever he thought would help W get re-elected if an attack happened just like he did when an attack didn't happen.

Now that you have perked my interest in this topic I decided to go do a little reading to see what I could learn and it didn’t take me very long to find evidence to confirm my suspicions. I found this article to be a good break down of the events in Spain’s elections.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-24-04.html

Spanish Polls before attack - Aznar

After attack

Zapatero

Good enough for me.

Spanish polls before the goverment lied to the people about the attack - Aznar

after lies

Zapatero

Good enough for me.

I believe that Mr. Carpenter knows a lot more about this than me, but this is simply an opinion piece with no factual basis for the conclusions. I'm not saying he is wrong, but I don't see the proof behind the conclusion that the change in polls was b/c of Iraq rather and al qaeda. What we know as fact is that one party was ahead in the polls and that changed after the al qaeda attack. What about Iraq changed in that short period of time? Also, I don't think allegations of appeasement are a slur. I think it probably happened in this case. You can argue about whether or not it is a bad thing--I think it is, but closing your eyes to it and making excuses because you are a more thoughtful and nuanced writer for the CATA Institute doesn't help convince me.

Well you are right there aliali, this is just an opinion piece, but then again so are all the other “reports” about the election and the effects the train bombing had upon it unless of course someone is going to poll every single Spaniard who was thinking of voting for Prime Minister Aznar before the bombing and instead voted for Zapatero afterwards to see why exactly they changed their mind.

So, anyone buy that ticket to socialist freedom?

Nothing beats a good Timmy's 'eh MSD? I've had Starbucks up here in Ottawa and it's tricky just to get a coffee flavoured coffee. I have to tell them I want a coffee, no fancy shit, just a bloody coffee, and when I finally get it, it's terrible